The Mirai Fury - An Architect Reviews [Star Citizen]

A fun sized package that packs a punch, find out why this ship is becoming a community favorite. 🌏 Get exclusive NordVPN deal here ➵ NordVPN.com/morphologis It’s risk free with Nord’s 30 day money-back guarantee!✌
0:00 Intro
1:43 The Design
6:38 Performance
9:03 Problem with Example
Follow me on twitter! / morphologis
Talk to me live on twitch: / morphologis
Want to chat with me about architecture? Join our ARMCO discord community today!
/ discord
Interested in getting into Star Citzen? Use this code when you register and get 5000 UEC more starting cash!
STAR-HT7D-RCG2
Music by Epidemicsound.com

[@adwickenkamp]

I believe that the MX's armor shield is primarily a blast shield to protect from blast from missiles as they launch

[@jonathanrich9281]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t think there’s any other ship that launches so many missiles so close to your own face. The base Fury does launch some missiles almost as close, but the size 1 missiles are actually closer to your face.

[@Jachin5]

When they launch, but I also think it could shield the pilot and thin canopy glass from the impact and potential explosion/debris from a large ship kill

[@ikkeheltvanlig]

Also, I think it's the reason alot of people that would only have gotten the Fury, now will get the Fury MX as well. It's distinctive.

[@sublis939]

That’s what I thought. Wasn’t sure if others thought the same but it’s great to know others do think that as well.

[@qwench3am553]

you can shoot the missiles without the shield 😐

[@the5starx]

In a recent Star Citizen Live, CIG confirmed that Cargo Elevators will allow us to load vehicles and small ships into larger ships directly inside the hangar. I believe this will be the moment where the snubs in the game will really be able to shine and feel worth it.

[@redblackcoalition8778]

But will you be able to do this with ships that your friend owns? If player A spawns their Caterpillar in a hangar can player B use the cargo elevator in the same elevator to spawn a fighter? I guess in this instance the better thing to do is for player B to spawn in his own hanger and rendezvous at the station.

[@allthatishere]

​@@redblackcoalition8778 Idk man, that sounds like alot of programming.

[@sernolstic4981]

@@allthatishere it might be but at a very baseline they will need to make this work for orgs as that will be the whole premise of multi group gameplay in capital ships

[@jbirdmax]

We’re any of you guys around when we had the expanding hangar modules? That would make this work. The side wall just opens up and BOOM! Enlarged hangar.

[@canniballistic555]

Did you not watch the video? Its not just that it takes a ridiculous amount of time to organise over just telling everyone to bring their LF, its the fact that these Snubs are not really better than a LF, or having someone man a turret, especially if you have Hurricane's or Redeemer's, this ship is useless right now outside of YTer's and RPer's.

[@rasztyscompany95]

Remember that the future of dogfighting is going to be significantly different as it is from now, it will be harder to flee battle as you need time to swich between combat and cruising modes, so maybe the fury will be a brilliant short range fighter that uses that design.

[@rakaydosdraj8405]

the fury isnt going to HAVE a cruising mode.

[@egbertthomas3684]

Why not? I thought that the combat speed was limited to scm speed so 220 for the Fury and that if you wanted to go max speed (1250 for the Fury) you need to go in cruise mode.

[@wildmtndog]

gives off sirius⭐BSG Viper(((vibes, eh?

[@rakaydosdraj8405]

@@egbertthomas3684 I was under the impression that cruise mode was specifically quantum boost mode, and the fury lacks a quantum.

[@egbertthomas3684]

@@rakaydosdraj8405 I thought they wanted to slow down combat a lot and if the cruise mode is only for qt travel stuff it wil make little difference. But to be honest not sure about this at all.

[@jokersandrogues9821]

I feel like Snubs are much more intended as a defensive option for larger ships if jumped, rather than being intended to be sent out on the offensive, which I think the Fury does decently at, if needing its mobility tweaked. We'll see what the flight model and master modes changes bring to the balance though (whenever that rolls out)

[@orthy853]

I can also see the fury being a good "garrison" fighter for an planetary installation.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

Yeah, like an alternative to turrets, rather than a separate dedicated light fighter.

[@jokersandrogues9821]

That's been my thought as well, or as a defensive component of a space station

[@kebasor]

I agree that Snubs are not designed as main combat units when a fight is expected. A snub fighter is more as a combat fighter that can be added to a larger ship that normally can't mount a fighter as a support unit in case combat breaks out. Another alternative is bringing -more- fighters than would be possible if each was a standard (the size of the Fury lets two to be taken for the space of a Gladius, I believe). Having 4 of these against 2 standard light fighters would probably be more an accurate idea of what the Fury is intended to be in an actual offensive roll.

[@BaneSIlvermoon]

​@kebasor I like the idea of trying to fit like a Fury and a Ranger inside something like a StarRunner. Where you're otherwise not going to be able to fit anything that can fly.

[@estatodonodisponible]

The important part is that once we can set our color schemes we already got a Swordfish (Merlin) and Red Tail (Fury) analogs, we only need analogs for the Hammerhead tow ship and the Bebop, and we can space cowboy.

[@Phokey29]

Lol I thought of that too

[@tropicthndr]

As soon as everyone gets their hands on the “San Tok Yai” this little toy will be just a gadget left in the corner of the back of their closet.

[@SkyeWolf310]

Carrack is pretty close to being the Bebop.

[@thesesrabbit87b47]

I own a caterpillar and seeing the fury wanna run like 4 in all of the Evangeliom EVA colour schemes as an aircraft carrier

[@gregbagel791]

C2 is my Bebop, but I wish we had a ship with a loading bay and an elevator

[@101chickendance]

I think the greatest advantage pf snubs is distance. It's a ship you take with you whereas light fighters require more stops or even bigger ships. I would rather have two snubs in the corsair than have two people in the side turrets

[@soleenzo893]

However those 2 crew would probably rather be in the turrets than in the furys once you're far from civilisation, since their risk of death is super high in a fury, whereas in a turret they'd be well protected.

[@BizzMRK]

the problem with that is that transport ships are not meant to stay in a battle but rather to last long enough to jump out, which would leave the fury stranded, light fighters however could just jump out on their own after they enabled the transports to jump away safely.

[@josephchello]

The deployment of the furies from the side of the Caterpillar was epic and a great way to show what the idea of "pocket carrier" looks like in practice. Well done.

[@AfroMocha]

The shot of the series just taking off from the caterpillar like that was awesome. I've been waiting 5 years now since I got into this game to see something like that

[@simonm.456]

That the MX has the shield makes actually sense to me. Because it needs to stay way longer focused on the target to keep the lock on the target. Even when Under fire. Yet I would love to have such feature on the regular Fury too.

[@renaudabbadie8154]

Especially during an unexpected joust situation against an opponent equiped with repeaters.

[@Rakadur]

I see the fury as a great space station defense, you can stack them quite tight in either a big hangar or lots of small ones like a honeycomb and just belch them out against any attackers. For other scenarios I imagine them being useful at scouting out the surface before big ships come in to land, its size and shape can help it navigate lots of environments.

[@dar_veider2702]

Very good ship for npc’s. Lot of people forget that SC will have a lot of pve in the future.

[@billywashere6965]

This. Mission feature team just recently made it where EVERY ship in SC can be used by enemy NPCs, which we'll likely see come to fruition in 3.20. I imagine Furies will be part of the VLRTs and LRTs as an easy way to get players acclimated to dogfighting.

[@liquidmodernitytasteslikeu2855]

lmao, we're in the future and still not remotely close, star citizen should have been a single player game, an improved X4

[@benlee8225]

@@billywashere6965 can see land on near enemy area and enemy runs off with it and starts attacking you with your own ship XD

[@AnymMusic]

@@billywashere6965 inb4 a bug spawns in a redeemer when you were meant to fight a easy light fighter lmao

[@Alex-uw5pk]

Love the video! Quick correction *8 size 1 missiles, not 8 size 3.

[@Morphologis]

Yeah I realized this afterword, I used the Erkul stats which were wrong. To be honest, I didn't even spend much time with the MX since it's a missile ship and missiles at the moment are pretty bad.

[@BlackThanator]

The missiles on the base Fury also are Size 2, not Size 3.

[@Alex-uw5pk]

@@Morphologis Totally agree, and I think everyone is clear on the specs of the ship anyway. Your perspective on both the pros and cons of the ship is the real meat of the video anyway which I totally agree with. Thanks for the response, Morph!

[@starbishop4916]

The white paint and cylindrical fuselage immediately made me think of a nasa-punk tie fighter before you even said a word and I love it.

[@Galacticat42]

Keep in mind as well, when going into pyro, you might be only able to take one or two arrows on a pocket carrier, but 5-7 furies

[@fluffywarhampster]

It also has so Faye valentine ship vibes from cowboy bebop. That cylindrical cockpit is iconic

[@disky01]

That's the first ship I thought of too...didn't even consider the Interceptor, haha

[@CelticWind88]

I'd like to see CIG implement some sort of host docking interface where you can land snub fighters quickly inside the host ship, refuel and rearm, and then redeploy without it causing huge issues. It might require modular sections (in the Caterpillar, for example), which means you have to invest in turning your large ship into a pocket carrier, but it would make "fleet combat" feel more intentional and less like it's cobbled together by the players who have enough time to fiddle around with it. Great video, btw, I love the camera work in this!

[@AthrunX23s]

I think the real appeal of the Fury isn't available yet since Stanton is so convenient with stations littered everywhere that light fighters could just reach anywhere easily. Once larger and more sparse systems like Pyro comes (along with possible refueling in the motherships hopefully), snubs like the Fury will be extremely valuable. It's comparable to how today's air superiority monsters like the F-15 are limited in their range from a ground base, unlike the carrier-borne F/A-18s.

[@Laerei]

Heh, limited in range, hehe. With three external fuel tanks, F-15 has a maximum range of 4815 kilometers vs F/A-18s measly 3330 kilometer range. Now, I get what you mean by range but while it would take an aircraft carrier nearly a week to i.e. go from New York to Israel, it would take F-15s just shy of ten hours if UK helps out with aerial refuelling. Or just land in UK to refuel and then carry on. Meanwhile, F/A-18 couldn't even make it across the Atlantic on it's own wings. It's not that F-15s can't go anywhere in the world when needed, it's just mobile airbase is more convenient for mission support where there are too few friendly airbases.

[@wakirk]

They did point out the refueling port on the Fury, so, I think this is more what they are thinking. Maybe Arrows etc are better, but you can't carry them in as many ships, and that will play a bigger role in Pyro. i.e. There won't be as many arrows there as there will be fury's.

[@canniballistic555]

Youre going to fly around Pyro with half your storage taken up by snub fighters that literally have 0 HP on the cockpit, over having the same people aboard your ship simply man your turrets... sure you will, I bet you request SF's refuel you too, oh no wait thats going to a Pyro thing right... almost like the same argument for useless ships keeps happening when whats needed is the mechanics and economies behind them to be reworked instead of trying to shoe-horn these ships into being useful.

[@Zman506]

The Mirai Fury is such a cool ship. Love flying it and may or may not have been with the crew you took on at Ghosts hollow the other day. You fought well hope to catch you in the verse another time

[@ArchOfWinter]

You know how in anime, when mechs and ships dock, they have those laser/holographic runway light that guide them in? The devs needs to add in an optional module to convert ships into carriers and enable semi-automatic docking and departure procedure for the smaller ships. When active, the carrier's gravity and inertia would be extended outward away from the cargo deck into empty space till the end of the 'runway.' Fury and other smaller ships would be then able to safely leave the carrier while it is moving without worry about bumping into the body of the ship. Same can be apply to docking back on. As long as the Fury and smaller ships can match the carrier's speed and hit the 'runway' in a correct approach path, the automatic docking takes over.

[@jasonco2]

I'm honestly more excited to see future variants of the Fury. A pathfinding variant with, perhaps, better scanners and/or a tractor beam similar to the 315p would be an absolute delight for exploring cave systems that would otherwise require a ground vehicle to get into it. That said, I think you're right about it needing a buff to feel worth it, especially the fuel capacity. With as small as it is, players might find it lacking in it's core use of traveling from a safe location, into a dangerous one, and then back to the safe one. Assuming of course that's the goal. If CIG really just wants people to travel to a dangerous location with a carrier ship, come to a full stop, open their bays, hope the enemy doesn't run, and then launch all their ships all before any real fighting has begun... then I suppose CIG has succeeded. Even if players looking to use such a strategy in-game will be far less successful. lol

[@plasticdeath31]

It's also like the oblivion drones, I love it

[@joelellis7035]

Definitely need to increase the fuel capacity. Also, CIG needs to figure out how to impart momentum on things inside of ships such that ships can be launched from other ships without the risk of sudden collisions.

[@rotsen3123]

Yeah i also hope physics will be upgrade to that.

[@pawelm329]

The cockpit reminds me of Bubble Fighter from Lost in Space (the one from 1998)

[@fate-aki]

I very much agree.

[@L0stEngineer]

I thought the Reliant Tana was a direct spiritual successor to that ship.

[@Asytra]

100% agree about the blast shield. The missile variant fires missiles well out of gun range. They really need to add it to the main variant.

[@ForgeofAule]

I think the MX's blast shield actually makes a lot of sense. The MX would most likely be used for fly bys where you charge straight at an enemy ship, lose off your missiles, and either circle around for another round or go to rearm. As you would be going head-on in a straight line towards your target, your front is a lot more exposed then the base variant as it weaves around an opponent.

[@Tonatsi]

I think that once we get proper fleet carrier ships, the snub fighters are going to get a resurgence as they will actually have the ability to disengage for refuel/restock/repair in a larger ship that has the health pool to stick around inside an engagement area.

[@BizzMRK]

once we get proper fleet carriers these things will be replaced by more durable and harder hitting light or even medium fighters.

[@billywashere6965]

@@BizzMRK Depends on preference really. Light fighters will require more resources to maintain than snub fighters. Smaller guilds will probably find it more convenient to run a Caterpillar and a few Furies in places like Pyro than a Liberator and several Arrows/Gladius.

[@BizzMRK]

@@billywashere6965 Star Citizen will have permadeath though (Death of a Spaceman) so people will probably preffer to have something more durable if they have the choice. The fury really can't take any hits without getting immobilized or destroyed once the shields are down.

[@AnymMusic]

@@BizzMRK to this day I pray that CIG never implements the most dumb idea in gaming a.k.a permadeath

[@BizzMRK]

@@AnymMusic the worst idea is probably that you will actually have to use the space toilet and space shower in the future (player hygine actually is on the roadmap not even kidding) aside from already having to drink every 5 minutes.

[@terranempire2]

I think she has a little Babylon 5 Star fury in there too. I mean it’s literally in the name.

[@michaelhaas4431]

What I like the most about the Hornet are the upper MFDs. The reason is, that when I strafe up in a dogfight and look up (using head tracking) to where my target is, I still can see those MFD screens. That’s huge to me. And it’s something that’s cool about the Fury as well. What’s getting in the way are not the MFDs but rather the box with buttons above and that one annoying strut.

[@zerentheunskilled]

I've been using my Fury alongside my friends who crew a Corsair. I fly ahead of them to scout out targets and to engage with things that they are struggling to keep targeted. It's proven to be a very effective setup for us.

[@PaddyyYY]

I think, because of its size, the fury currently serves as an excellent dinghy for your "boat". You can easily store it in many ships and use it to get to an "island" and explore. You can even use it for cave exploration in some cases without having to worry to clip your wings. I also wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road CIG will create a dedicated misc carrier that can hold multiple furies like a grape on its outside, to let them easily start and then reattach once the fight is over.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

I think of snub fighters, not as an alternative to a light fighter, but as a turret that can detach from the ship. When we have multiple star systems, being able to ferry a fighter around instead of having to fly there and keep stopping for fuel etc would be hugely advantageous from a logistics perspective.

[@xtremetuberVII]

Cramming a custom jet fighter on the back of an F-250 truckbed, Morph, I cannot get this image out of my head and it's all your fault.

[@jereminc4568]

I think what many people are missing is that snubs will be more valuable in larger systems where small fighters don't have the range to solo. In stanton, I agree, they are not optimal, but they would be a very welcome addition when on a deep space expedition.

[@KitHavok]

When they introduce VR into the game, the open cockpit of these fast snub fighters is where it'll shine.

[@fate-aki]

Fury MX is 8x S2 and 12x S1 missiles. The Carrack can carry 4 easily in the hanger bay and 7 to 9 on the hanger doors. This combination with a level 2 med bed makes it the ideal "pocket carrier."

[@FlippantBear]

I thoroughly enjoy your An Architect Reviews. However, as new ships are introduced and old ones are remodeled, a reevaluation would be appreciated. Can we hope to see new/updated videos in the near future?

[@thesesrabbit87b47]

My crew has started to run a caterpillar with 3 fury’s in the bays to run defence and a big mining ship, sometimes a friend with a constellation helps us run freight and others with bigger fighters occasionally

[@superfonsini]

I completely agree. CIG created something of their own. Doesn't matter where they get their inspiration. It's a very cool ship.

[@greymamith7270]

The use case I see for this ship (as I have been using it) is allowing a small crew (as small as 2 in my case) to have extreme endurance in multiple smaller engagements over time. I have been running around in my carrack with one other person with 3 furies in the hanger and we have been using them as disposable single use or two time use disposable fighters to allow us to do multiple bounty hunter missions without risking the mother ship or risking a long claim timer. If my buddy dies in the fighter they simply re spawn and take another out and try again. then after several bounties we head back to an outpost and spawn three more with only a 2min claim timer. This is a very cost effective and fun way to run a carrier with a tiny crew. Is it efficient? Maybe not, but it is very fun and I have always wanted to run a larger ship as a base of operations in deep space. This simply does that for me.

[@grabbagproductions1046]

The thing about the fury that shines for me it’s that I can shove one in my Corsair and still have room for cargo and a rover. That enables me to go run hostile bunkers or hot drop with rovers and then have the ability to pivot to bounty hunting or cargo/piracy without having to head to a station. The Corsair and many other ships have a large blind spot and a snub can help to cover that weakness very well. Snubs may seem useless in Stanton where you can just hop to a station to pick a fighter up but they can be useful if you keep a few in a corner on your C2 as cover and fighter killing during a piracy sting or in pyro where you can need a fighter at any moment with less of the ability to reclaim on easily.

[@btkeller93]

I think a great addition for snubs is to have a launch mechanism, either something you install in the carrier ship, or just built into the games engine or w/e, that allows you to safely launch (maybe even land) snubs while going any speed with the carrier ship. Something that gives perfect collision protection from the carrier ship no matter what during launch. I think it would give a much greater sense of freedom to the how and when you would decide to have people jump into snubs to protect your main ship. It could launch you out and grab you back in without worrying about dsync or any other jank. It would be super cool to see and do having an intense fight and snubs constantly taking off and landing to refuel/restock ammo and getting right back out there without needing to let up on evasive maneuvers from the carrier ship to let them land.

[@Elburion]

I'm sure this has been said, but CIG needs to hire you to get your input on any new ship concepts and designs, even if they don't go with your feedback, I agree having the shield on both Fury ships makes sense, it's a ship dependent close-range interceptor. You would be a great improvement to quality of life in ship designs.

[@unclebruce6551]

I found a great use for the Fury: I fly to 157 on Yela, accept the 2 missions at the nearby derelict, fly there in the Fury, take out the NPCs from within the ship, do some quick looting, then wait for an NPC Cutty to swing by. Once it destroys the Fury, it should land. Jump on board, take out the pilot, and use the free Cutty (with a free NPC turret gunner watching your back) to roll bunkers. In 3.19, I've been able to repair and rearm stolen NPC ships too, so it's a great option. Give it a try, its a lot of fun. 😃👍

[@sorecgaming]

You brought up some really great points. While Avenger One pointed out the performance from a combat scenario, your point from the causal player perspective gives food for thought. I get what CIG was going for here, the cool factor was a home run, and we'll see what flight modes does to future combat changes. However, this allows more players to now include a snub ship with many more ship options, CIG does have an opportunity here with different variants in non-combat scenarios. Ex: a scanning/data-mining fury (or maybe under a different name) would be awesome to scan large amounts of areas in a short time span before return to it's host ship.

[@nepenthy9804]

There is one problen with low-cost fighter concept like fury. Star citizen is a MMO, not a arena dogfight game. In games like warthunder, flying low-cost ship gives you lower risk if you get shot down. But in star citizen, the death penalty is way more than just the ship, so no matter you are in a low-cost ship or in a high-cost ship like F8, your lost is so much more than the difference in ship price. CIG was promoting the idea to use fury like a drone swarm, but because player life cost a lot in star citizen, swarm tactics won't work once the death of a spaceman is fully implemented in PU. This is the trend for any MMO: players are gonna seek for lower risk tasks as they grind better and better ships, But you don't want them to lose gameplay experience with high-risk low-cost ships. So, if CIG allow us to insert a drone piloting chip to fury, and control it remotely on the mothership, then this concept could be much doable in the long run. That means even if I own a javelin, i will be still willing to remotely control a fury, fly out of the hanger, and do some exciting dog fight without taking risk of an actual player death.

[@M3talhound]

Well said. I always appreciate content. The Architect Review videos are among my favorite!

[@ts25679]

Drone carriers. One beefy bastard with armour, shields, turrets and fighter drones. All the snub craft are contained and maintained by the carrier, as well as being controlled remotely by pilots on the carrier. Rudimentary A.I wingmen can back you up if you don't have the pilots on board to manage all of them. This way your big ship is the lynchpin of the op = big target drawing fire from the smaller craft and protecting your pilots. Also, starfighter launch tubes are a must.

[@nathanz7205]

Love the massive scale fights you did for the video! looks awesome! But yeah i agree, i wish the shield was on both. I also understand where the missiles causing damage comes into play but at the moment the current partial system doesn't really reflect big missiles doing damage as they are launched, maybe in the future that can come.

[@thrashjf83]

I think Snubs will have a value when we can A: steal and keep ships. B: Raid locations. I mean at jump town you could bring in a cat with five Furies and a drop ship. Have the Furies do their thing trying to do air support while the cat gets filled, they can then keep support until the cat is away. After that it's land away from JT, ditch the furies, and take off on the drop ship. I think the main selling point for that is going to be if, and it's a big if, the snubs have a drastically reduced claim time. Likewise if you can summon them at platinum bays on a moon you could just load up the drops ship and cat on crusader, fly to a moon, everyone load their furies, then jump to jump town.

[@deltacx1059]

5:55 seems like a missile version would be intended to be closer to a ground support/ anti ship role where you would be facing enemy weapons but the normal one is more of a light dogfighter where your cockpit isnt going to be facing enemy guns unless someone uses it to fight bigger ships. And bear in mind, the inspiration for that ship is a TIE! Those suckers are bare bones deathtraps made to be disposable and deployed in swarms. The other inspiration is a dinky scout transport.

[@dragonchild_SC]

Just my thoughts on the cockpit shield for the Fury MX. If I remember right, it is called a blast shield. So I think it was originally added to protect you from the exhaust of your own missiles. So only the MX would need it. Not sure about missiles on the normal Fury, but I guess those were added later.

[@Sitarow]

Great review, one of the best fan made video work out their :D

[@tadecker82]

These things are wicked, for what they are...TIE Interceptors. Get an 890 Jump (which has the wedge shape similar to another sci-fi, fighter carrying ship type 🤔), and you could house an entire squadron of these in the landing bay...which would be a nasty surprise for pirates. 😁👍

[@lordseptomus441]

honestly I'm glad that CIG is making things underperform and then buffing them up, instead of introducing powercreep to a game that isn't even out yet.

[@bmc8246]

Have a quick look at the diagram for the cargo module on the Galaxy, and notice the little tractor rails that pick up and drop off cargo through the center door.

[@peterpayne2720]

I really appreciate the aesthetic of the ship and love that they took inspiration from the Tie Interceptor. Now all you gotta do is pair it with the RSI Galaxy and you got the mini Star Destroyer too.

[@stormwolf3255]

I'd like to see launch modules for the caterpillar that allowed for snubs to be launched while the caterpillar is moving (without risk of damage to either ship through hitbox collisions) and also recovery via tractor beam (reverse parking)... additionally allowing the launch bay module to permit limited refuel, re-arm and repair (for the specific snub fighter type it is designed for) would go some way to offsetting the fuel limitations and fragility of the snub.

[@bsquaredbundles]

The advantage of carrier based snubs over qt capable light fighters will come with Pyro and other places where attackers need to travel a long distance and be ready for a fight at the end of the trip. This only works if there ISN'T a closer staging ground that light fighters can spawn and launch from. Another use might be as convoy security, parking one or two on other security ships like a Freelancer MIS or Hammerhead to deal with pirates that might be operating in light fighters from a close base, whereas the convoys jump distances and speeds prohibit them from bringing their own light fighters.

[@freestatefellow]

I think Oblivion is one of the most aesthetically pleasing Sci-Fi pieces of the last while. I’m glad to see that design reflected here.

[@tropicthndr]

No way, the Jetsons is top.

[@freestatefellow]

@@tropicthndr agreed! But the Jetsons is classic. I think Oblivion is some of the best new design.

[@kingssman2]

Your last bit literally described battle doctrines of X-wings vs Tie fighters. Only way to make them useful in SC is to bring their costs in line with the other snubs and quantumless vehicles. We need a dedicated military ship with snub bay to make the Fury feel at home vs trying to transport in our cargo haulers.

[@connorallison2123]

The way that I've started using the fury is as an escort ship for my carrack, it does far more damage than a c8 and it can carry more of them too. A light fighter can't make all of the qt jumps that the carrack can and I'm guessing that it will only be exasperated in pyro with it's lack of many places to refuel. Honestly i think that makes the ship really balanced, save for the super limited effective health pool

[@vagabondprime1691]

I'm more excited about possible chassis variants in the future, like if there was a mining version, shuttle, or a light cargo hopper. But the fury is an absolute blast to fly, and it'll be the snub in my Carrack for a bit!

[@VantaGenesis]

I've found some success using my Furies as a defensive fleet for org salvage operations. We keep a Carrack & 7 Furies alongside our Reclaimer, and if players show up to attack along our route, the Reclaimer has time to spool up its massive quantum drive and jump away with the cargo.

[@SundaeOfDoom]

One solution could be similar to the custom racing beacons, maybe you could add a docking computer module for your ship's AI. Then setup a "docking" beacon in your cargo hold, with borders constricted to specific ships you or your partied crew have to fly in yourselves, for auto docking or guidance. It could be done like Super Mario Maker styled, "do it yourself first before you're allowed to submit it" so that it is verified you won't just crash due to poor placement. Maybe that could solve this issue for quickly acquiring your furies for pursuit or escapes. I still think you're right and that most would rather just use bigger ships as motherships to resupply their own quantum-enabled ships though.

[@strawberryarsonistediting]

Morph when a performance company's snub doesnt outclass frontline PMC fighters in 1v1 dogfighting 😱😱😱

[@jswabes]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4bFZY2YnMdln9k

[@samarthnagar3856]

Not everyone in s perfect unfortunately

[@forcommenting1017]

He makes a valid point when you take the game as it currently is. Yet when we think about full release, not everyone is gonna be PvP focused, but rather PvP adjacent. Like traders, they will probably have a snub on board for personal protection and that's where something like the fury makes a lot of sense. If you are a pirate crew based on a Corsair, having a Fury aboard would add a significant source of firepower and versatility. The hope is that not everyone will have a capital ship or military grade fighter when the full game comes out.

[@connorjensen9699]

I’m not sure you really grasped his point

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

I feel like the Fury is a very good example of blending Inspiration and Innovation - you can tell what inspired it, but it's unique enough to stand on its own. This is less the case with the Vulture (and Eve's Venture) and even far less with the Nomad (and ED's Asp Explorer)

[@jerichoshepherd2106]

I believe/hope that physicalized damage and flight model changes will bring most ships (including the Fury) into relative parity. I also believe that their are enough kinds of players to fill out the various roles like turret gunners or fighter pilots simply because that's what they want to do. If I'm right about those things, I think the Fury is perfect for new players who want into large scale combat at a low cost, plus combat aces and organized squadrons who can use the slight size and speed differences to their advantage may still prefer them. In that case I think that the Fury will come into it's own in two very valuable circumstances: The 1st is in extremely large players engagements, where a Kraken, Idris, Polaris, etc can field significantly more of these for potentially less cost than larger QT capable fighters, and remain on station to support them. With medical/hospital ships in QT range, most pilots could hopefully be recovered/revived (mechanics willing). The 2nd is ambushes. Pack a pair of Caterpillars and a C2 to the gills with Furies instead of cargo, throw in a few weak escort ships to sell the illusion and wait for a pirate or otherwise adversarial org to spring the trap.

[@Aliani]

Thanks for the nice vid again! I do think that you are taking one (hopefully one day) impactful difference in the eventual game. Economic cost. I would suspect that these fighters, although high tech, are going to be cheaper to build and maintain, for example. Yes, I would prefer a light fighter here, but this ship costs half as much and we can get an extra body out with the same dough.

[@LordQuantum]

Once you can spawn your snubs with your main ship, the set up time will actually be as quick (or quicker) then separate ships, so that will help. I agree that it needs some HP adjustments to it's engines and maneuverability.

[@pramusetyakanca1552]

The Fury is what you get when you combine the Oblivion drone with a TIE Interceptor, and I'm all here for it And I'd like to say that I think the reason why the MX variant has the blast shield over the base variant is because it carries much more valuable cargo. It's just as up close and personal as the base variant, and therefore needs some extra protection to keep the pilot from dying before they launch the MX's payload.

[@Zayfod]

Like some other have said, there's a touch of the Starfury from Babylon 5 in the design as well. The square aspect with corner mounted engines, and a wide open centrally mounted glass cockpit really ping that "Starfury" bell for me. Though if you want a //really// deep cut for glass bubble cockpit star fighters, they also share that design cue with the Brunnen G insect fighters from Lexx, and they didn't fare too well in combat either...

[@JassOchoa]

I am glad to hear that I was not the only one who noticed the similarity with oblivion.

[@mythicallegendary3992]

there is also the case of fuel as well, with them fitting in the cat that gives them a lot more range as well.

[@bladewolling4947]

My main interest in the Fury is to add a snub fighter to a Taurus when hauling some high value cargo or special package in the secret compartment. Of course, you'll have to leave room for some cargo and bring along a friend to fly the Fury.

[@ltmuffler3482]

Snubs - and technically light fighters - are interceptors meant to destroy enemy attack craft. In WWII, fighter bombers (or bombers with fighter escorts) were used to sink carriers, and so carriers required a reserve of interceptors to protect it. Interceptors require less ammunition and fuel since they're always in close proximity to their carrier craft, which gives them better speed and maneuverability to dogfight with. Superiority Fighters (mediums and heavies) needed the ammunition and fuel to protect bombers en route to an objective or provide air support to ground operations, and so they were designed to delete anti air emplacements and dogfight against interceptors. The historic rock paper scissors of air combat.

[@Exav2]

in pyro it's possible there will be places you can't fly an arrow or gladius to easily because of fuel limitations and distance. In a situation like that a carrier makes far more sense

[@VideoNinjaJim]

Glad I picked the Blue and Gold for the C2... That Lens Flair off of the Gold, Nice!

[@VossLikeTheWater]

I think another use case that people forget is a bug-out vehicle if you're soft-death'd. If I'm flying a cutlass and the thing gets popped, I can drop the bay door and get the hell out of dodge, or at least far enough away that I can hide from the player and wait for a ride home

[@IrvNation]

Ahhh. The Tie Interceptor. Okay, I see that, now. See, my first thought was Faye Valentine's Red Tail.

[@terriorx]

I think ill have my fury as an escape pod when I fly medium/big ships to risky places. Keep it on with engine off, go on the adventure, when shtf try to use it to get out before explosion...

[@jordanmoreno1872]

So true, trying to fight solo in a medium vessel is so difficult, fleeing or fighting in this thing seems like a much more feasible option, big ships are SLOW

[@2727daqwid]

We need the Liberator for those little cute things. Since it has open landing pads, it won't have to wait or even stand still to grab them all and scoot away.

[@garttodant3223]

My personal favorite ships are the Xian and Banu, really like that alien tech. The Reliant made a really good attempt into bringing Xian technology to a more human design. But this little guy? Simply amazing. And I like that they reimagined the Tie fighter, good ideas should be used as inspiration. Good video, Morph!

[@louhodo5761]

The reliant is a good concept done poorly. And it's engines are bad.. it's under powered and sluggish on a good day.

[@tropicthndr]

As soon as everyone gets their hands on the San Tok Yai, the Fury will be that child’s toy you grew out of and stuffed in the back of your closet and forgot about.

[@garttodant3223]

@@tropicthndr DAMM!! I didn't even know that design existed!! Yeah, you are right, I have a new favorite ship xdd

[@Wrzlprnft]

Snubs can cover the blind spots of the main ship. They don't need to kill anything, just force it out of the angles the main ship can't fire at

[@KiithnarasAshaa]

11:00 The heart of the problem is that CIG want to engender the Classic Dogfight feel in Star Citizen with ships that are _way_ more capable than fixed-wing fixed-engine aircraft. They're way more capable than even modern attack helos even though there's a bit more in common there with respect to handling and combat style. In some ways, they're even more capable than the ships depicted in The Expanse with far greater control authority in air and in space, at the expense of having virtually zero defensive automation. Even ships in Elite Dangerous are substantially less maneuverable and less capable than similar ships in Star Citizen. The Fury is just another example of this, a very strafey, very nimble, very agile snub fighter with pretty decent firepower comparable with an Aurora LN, far better suited to short-distance jousting and evasive-orbiting than it would be a nose-to-tail chase (even in such a chase, the ship in front...can just reverse). CIG seem like they want to force combat to behave a certain way while fundamentally misunderstanding how ships are more likely to behave in the hands of players. Dogfights in Star Citizen will _never_ be the nose-to-tail chase situation that the Classic Dogfight depicts and will _never_ have the same kind or level of positioning complications associated with that. At the same time, CIG seem like they design ships with that style of combat in mind, especially larger ships. The Caterpillar isn't a great example of this since its two manned turrets are positioned quite well, actually - centerline, full coverage, decent elevation. If we move to something like the C2 Hercules, its turrets aren't especially fantastic. Its bottom turret cannot look up behind the back of the craft, nor can it depress down past 45 degrees for no reason at all. The back turret is situated between its two large tail wings and similarly cannot elevate above 45 degrees, significantly limiting its usefulness and assuming it will definitely be chased by ships that will stay in that field of fire - which with Master Modes will _never_ happen: The Hercules in SCM is limited to 135, which while fast for its size is still significantly slower than every light or even medium fighter. This will allow these smaller ships to, almost with impunity, dictate an engagement - they can stand off and fire missiles or harass in and out of fire range to minimize their risk, and the larger ship will not be able to close or quantum away without dropping its shields and turning off its weapons, at best fighting back with missiles of its own if it even has any - assuming the small ships don't just dodge or defeat the missiles in question. This might not be so bad if larger weapons actually had a range advantage, but outside of the current split of 1-4 and 5+, there really isn't any range differential (and the larger guns have slower projectiles, making it nearly impossible to hit moving targets at longer range anyway). All of this is to highlight how, indeed, it is simply more effective to bring full-size escorting fighters in the vast majority of cases than to have other players occupy turrets or carrier-dependent ships at the moment and even in the near future with prospective plans. The Hammerhead is potentially an exception, but even big ol' hammy has some arbitrary weaknesses with the sheer inability for the waist and cheek turrets to be able to converge forward or back (it should be fairly trivial to develop a safety-interlock system that prevents a turret from firing at its own ship while allowing it to aim in that direction). The given example of the C2, that back turret could very easily behave like the Scorpius turret and slide up to the top, allowing it to look over the wings and rotate a full 360, greatly increasing its utility and attractiveness to a co-pilot/gunner, while the bottom turret could simply slide backward a little when deployed to give it a larger rear-facing field of fire. The Retaliator is another example of this problem with many comparatively weak and small turrets all requiring to be manned where the great majority of them could easily be remote (it's also a ship that was made very early in the design process before remote turrets existed - it definitely needs a revisit). As a result, it has a very _strong_ feeling of a B-17 In Space and even has a very similar turret layout, sans tail gunner position (it'd be difficult, but not impossible, to wedge a turret between the engines, and doing so would still be rather impractical given the ship's maneuverability). A far more practical design would condense the two 'waist' turrets into a single mount, and make both top and bottom turret positions centerline, remote, and have much broader arcs of fire. This has kind of turned into a tangential rant about how even turret positions aren't as attractive as full ships, but the argument is still valid for carrier-dependent snubs. At the very least, these snub craft need quantum drives - high speed, Size 0 quantum drives that are fast to spool and calibrate. The ships themselves probably shouldn't have even the range to go between major planets, but quantum around planets and moons and between a planet and its moons, absolutely. This would at least give the carrier ship an opportunity to escape if the fight is going poorly and allow the snubs to scatter and rejoin it rather than simply being left stranded to fend for themselves. For Turrets, I put the Hammerhead's Quad S4's as the gold standard for manual-operated and directly-manned. Twin S5s, Twin S4's and Quad S3's probably also qualify. Twin S3's or Quad S2's should probably be remotely-operated at least, and anything less should probably also be semi- or fully-autonomous, depending on the size of the ship. Heck, thinking about Very Big main-battery turrets on Cruisers and such (speculatively Twin or Triple S7's or S8's), _those_ don't even a person physically inside the turret. They could very easily be a remote command position in a fire control center or even at a control position near the turret without unnecessarily expanding the turret itself to accomodate people.

[@KynthTV]

The overhead MFD makes sense and I like that CGI are not building flawless ships by every manufacturer by design (as well as accident). Design is often constrained in the implementing by parts bins as well as habit and style. Mirai likely pulling from MISC inventory has access to the fixtures and cabling for the overhead MFD ready to hand for manufacturing. Akin to Lamborghini using VW/Audi vents and dials.

[@Sapherzz]

The only thing I can think of between the base and missile versions is that perhaps the missile version is meant to be their version of a tie-bomber in the same way the base version is based on a tie-interceptor. Tie-bombers have heavier armour by design to give them the best chance of launching their payload without getting shot down whereas the interceptor doesn't, so perhaps the armoured canopy on this is a similar design feature?

[@brackman7786]

What i would love in with snub fighters, give them remote control and a 1 time QD for deployment. they could be used as a rapid strike force from a carrier vessel that can stay out of the area

[@thewordywizard4389]

Great video, nice overview and some great points about its pros and cons. 1 point in particular got me thinking. Why can you not launch from a moving ship? In real world this is naturally solved by a simple rule in physics called inertia. I hope this is something CIG will implement. I'm sure, while the rule might be simple, it is not going to be simple to simulate in-game but if they want carrier ships then it is going to be very important.

[@pixel.citizen]

I think the key component you're overlooking (due to being limited to the Stanton system) is range. The ONLY reason to choose any snub for combat is range -- and in particular traveling between systems. Same goes for turrets. The expectation is that someday traversing systems will become much more arduous and making multiple stops to get a cargo ship and its protection from A to B will be detrimental. At least, that's what I envision. A Hull-D or E escorted by a couple Cats filled with Furies would be surprisingly formidable and have the range to avoid making stops to refuel in every system. An escort of Arrows can't even get across Stanton

[@Killer66hitman]

I believe the use case for Snub fighters in SC should be the concepts of "there if you need it" and also a gameplay loop that involves going out in the fighter, doing damage and dying, and respawning in the bigger ship and jumping in another fighter or a turret etc. Really doable in the Carrack atm, a long range carrier that 4 players can man and have fun and do their thing and when stuff hits the fan they can send some players out in the fighters who can die and respawn in the ship and continue fighting in the turret or take another fighter out. That's the gameplay loop snub fighters should give

[@jklappenbach]

Totally agreed on both lack of blast protector on the laser boat version, as well as the choice to put a display on the top. All the info a pilot needs should be displayed on the helmet hud. They need to get rid of the panel and keep the view unobstructed. And in the "economy" of the fight, you're spot on that it's likely that these snub fighters will gather dust once the novelty has worn off. The problem is that they should have started, from the very beginning, with the snub fighters and made combat ships with drives much more rare. Or perhaps much larger and expensive. This would then create an environment where the snub fighters were much more of a focus. For jumps capability, it would force younger, less experienced, or even less wealthy players to group together with "carrier" pilots to ferry them around. That's probably not the play experience they wanted to force on their supporters, so here we are. I don't think they can go back, so these will always be a bit of a utility option. Perhaps they could create cave or tunnel-based pve experiences that could only be accomplished with snubs to give them some edge. Thinking back to my time with EveOnline, their biggest issue was battles at scale. If more than 4k players decided to throw down in the same system, they either could lose the server in a crash once latency became an issue, or slow time. They eventually chose to slow time, but that made for an unenjoyable player experience, at least for me. So, they tried to make logistics as difficult as possible. They only had two classes of ships, carriers and jump freighters, that could travel between systems without using gates. And unfortunately, their "carriers" were only droneboats, instead of actually carrying ships piloted by other players. What I observed from years in EoL? 1. Make logistics a pain, and take time to ferry ships, ammo, and fuel from here to there. 2. Make it much easier for carriers to jump the distances, and make carriers great for their own defense, but not for offense. For that, the ships they carry need to be the point of the spear. This will ensure the meta always revolves around the smaller classes of ships, and that the battles will be much smaller in scale as it will be harder to mass large numbers. 3. If they keep the drives on the smaller ships, they need to seriously need the distances that they can travel in quickly. As SC grows in scale, this will be less of a nerf, and more of only granted the larger jump radius to the capital ships to reach distant points quickly. I think some of EoL's issues stemmed from the fact that they were doing collision detection on CPUs. Much more performant algs can be achieved on GPU, and with 100GBps networking, battles should easily be able to scale to tens of thousands. They'll still need to be able to control the meta, however, and ensure that balance is maintained between wealthy and poor players. And enforcing carrier + fighters is a great way to do that.

[@ishtaunt3191]

For those who are possibly saying that he messed up the missile classifications he is already quite aware of that.

[@OmegaZyion]

Snub fighters right now are an all in combat tactic. If you can't win the fight, there is no way to escape as you can't tell the mothership to sit perfectly still while you gingerly land your snub. I would suggest that at the very least there needs to be a feature to match velocities with other ships. In games like Space Engineers, you just push a button and a fighter automatically matches the velocity of the mothership so that you can safely land the ship while the mothership is moving. That or make hanger bay modules for ships like the Caterpillar that allows you to automatically dock quickly once you get close enough. Maybe even include docking arms that hold the ship perfectly in the center of the bay so that you can launch from the Caterpillar Battlestar Galactica style at full thrust.

[@bodboddington9367]

RE: fuel and viability. I think that when we can go to Pyro, as well as refuel the Furys manualy, the viability of them will go up a bunch. Allowing you to launch your fighters from a larger ship, with a larger fuel pool to get about. The only thing then thou, is needing space for extra supplies for the Fury. However the Cat looks made for it with the ladders to get to the Fury you need, and then a small storage space on the oposate side of the ladder at the base.

[@Tsudico]

There are a few aspects that I don't think are being looked at that might make the Fury more acceptable: 1. Stanton is a relatively small solar system. In larger systems where you'll have to carry your light fighters (even if they have a QT drive) to cross the distance, you'll probably be able to fit more Furies in your ship in case they are needed. 2. Furies are less likely to appear as sensor targets since they most likely will be within another ship's sensor signal. If you want to look like an attractive target for pirates, a cargo ship full of Furies will be better than a cargo ship with an escort squadron. For player Orgs who are lawful, this might be a good honeypot. 3. If CIG ever gets the land claim system in place, there will be player locations that only need short range ships for defense. Not having a QT drive is an acceptable trade off.

[@bladewolling4947]

Another great Morphologis video, but there were some errors: the Fury has s2 missiles not s3 and you can't swap the mount to use smaller ones.

[@codeyfox622]

Honestly these should be the PERFECT mining outpost defense ships. I would say that fuel needs to be balanced so that they have a LONG flight time, or the tank is tiny but the consumption is minuscule, so it's CHEAP to refuel them from the host ship or outpost.

[@vellor9145]

Its so cool ! I hope we get more from mirai that looks like TIE fighters ! An explorer or a long range fighter

[@gregmosher4287]

I really enjoyed using the fury for racing. I loaded up the carrack with 1 and set it as my spawn point then flew the carrack to the race track, parked, then would do a bunch of laps. thing I would like is if the parent ship of the fury could refuel it... at least if the parent ship has a dedicated hangar. so maybe a caterpillar cant but a carrack and 890 could

[@billfrederick2710]

I think these are going to be the most effective when it comes to larger star systems, like pyro. The Arrow, Gladius, etc. aren't going to have the QT fuel capacity to get to distant targets, like something out near the edge of the system. So, you either 1) run a legitimate carrier(s) (think Kraken or maybe a Liberator) to get a decent number of light fighters out to the target (which in theory is going to be expensive to operate, and definitely to purchase), 2) fly light fighters but be forced to conduct multiple refueling stops with a Starfarer which will add significant time to get there (think of how long it'll take to refuel 5-10 ships multiple times there and back), or 3) not have light fighters. The Fury allows you to meet the problem in the middle, where you can bring a significant contingent of light fighters into the fight, and you can haul them out there with a ship that won't break the in-game or real life bank to get. Therefore, this adds long-range raids (and other mission options) to a whole additional segment of the player base that couldn't otherwise afford it. While some might complain that this means you're devaluing those carriers, that argument ignores the firepower/storage options that those carriers bring that a C2 or Catipillar won't if it's loaded down with a bunch of Fury's. As usual, and to CIG's credit, they're giving us another layer of decisions to make. We just have to stop looking at these game designs within the scope of Stanton is all there is.